Our Partisan Expectations

One of the most central and consistent messages delivered by then-Senator Barack Obama in his Presidential campaign was the need to move beyond partisan political gridlock. Obama promised to transcend the old debates and the old party lines. He said he'd listen to Republicans as well as Democrats and make government a transparent, inclusive process.

It's my hope that his bi-partisan project, if temporarily stalled, is not completely de-railed. However I have to admit my own skepticism about the will of the Obama administration to truly govern from the center and across partisan divides. The manner in which the stimulus and omnibus bills were passed was a huge gift of power to partisan Democrats. President Obama gave them free reign to craft the bills and rush them through without either legislative or public scrutiny, and defended what were valid concerns of fiscal conservatives (and not just Republicans) with a strawman about spending being the point of stimulus (as if all government spending were equally stimulative, as long as your tax dollars ended up somewhere else).

When Republicans have voiced valid concerns such as those about earmark spending, or legislative process and transparency, or fiscal responsibility, there has been no inclusion, no defense of their viewpoints, no tolerance of their dissent by Obama. The White House has been the first to disparage Republicans as partisan and having "no ideas" (when in fact they had ideas, but were not permitted to participate in many key meetings). At its worst, the administration has shifted back into campaign mode, distracting the nation from the debate that was going on with coordinated partisan attacks on Republican media figures, while attempting to use Obama's campaign fundraising network to build mass support for a partisan policy stance on the budget. They've also played 'the Bush card' at every opportunity even though the most pointed criticism of White House policy from fiscal conservatives was also criticism levelled at Bush; in other words, Obama's used partisan polarization to defend his continuing to do what the Bush administration did against those who want to see an improvement. This is not post-partisanship; it is to the left exactly what the Bush administration plus Republican congress was to the right in 2001. Meanwhile the center - which is most of America - suffers and wonders why no real solutions are forthcoming from their government. And like the Bush excesses, these opportunistic liberal abuses are bound to trigger a mighty backlash, and the pendulum will continue to swing (and miss the point: solving the nation's problems).

I am still hopeful, however, that some pressure from key moderate Democrats and some growing public concern over the issues might still bring about the kind of non-ideological, non-partisan government that we were promised. As I've noted in some previous posts (and will continue to), there are bi-partisan efforts being made, they just don't get nearly the press. The press has its own interest here, unfortunately; it is plausible that the media (and not just mainstream media - the fringe as well) sees more value in disagreements and name-calling than in common-sense and consensus. It's part of the sensationalism that they have figured out how to sell to a cynical viewership.

So, it now appears that a greater number of Americans are expecting more partisanship, not less in the coming year. From a Rasmussen poll:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters now think politics in Washington, D.C. will be more partisan over the next year rather than more cooperative. That’s up from 49% a month ago, 40% two months ago, and 34% in early January.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 26% expect things to be more cooperative. That’s down from 48% in early January.

Half of U.S. voters (50%) now believe President Barack Obama is governing as a partisan Democrat. That’s up seven points from a month ago and eleven points from two months ago.

But voters continue to think Congress is acting on a more partisan basis than the president. Sixty-four percent (64%) now say congressional Democrats are acting like partisan Democrats, while 20% say they’re bipartisan. As for Republicans in Congress, 57% of voters say they’re acting like partisan Republicans. Twenty percent (20%) say their actions are bipartisan.

It is probably not radical to suggest that there are politicians, close associates of politicians, and related political elite who benefit greatly from political power and who are interested, primarily, in holding and enhancing that power. A conjecture to the left, and the right: these power-centered political creatures do not care a whit about ideology; what they care about is whether ideology can be used for effective sloganeering in order to establish their power base. Both parties have these types of characters, and some even pretend to be "outsiders". They pretend to serve the people and the nation. They tend to like things partisan, because it works to their advantage with their constituencies and donors. There's a little Blagojevich in all of them.

Also, both parties have sincere ideologues who will only admit room for their worldview. And both parties have loyal, habitual cheerleaders who are going to shout for their team from the sidelines like any good Friday night football fan - and they'll keep cheering for their side even if the referee makes a bad call that works to their advantage, even if one of their team takes down an opponent with a cheap shot.

Given this, it is all the more remarkable to me to see examples of individuals who can occasionally buck their party line and exercise power with restraint, common sense, and a willingness to work with those of differing views. The fact that there are any moderate and considerate politicians at all is a testament to human character. The Rasmussen poll should be a wake-up call; Americans should demand better from their leaders. This doesn't mean any of us need to give up opinions that might seem to belong better in one party than in another; but it does mean that we need to look for solutions that represent all Americans, not just those one one side or the other of the self-perpetuating partisan pendulum.

And when a candidate runs on a central theme of being "post-partisan", we should be prepared to hold him accountable, particularly if he starts following the star of power away from the firm ground of his word.

Reid speaks up for the center

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has voiced a criticism of left-wing attacks on moderate Democrats, and a defense of the importance of the latter in the legislative process.

“I’m not one who is going to be driven by people on the extremes, saying it’s only my way or no way,” Reid said. “That’s not the way legislation works.”

MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change have both launched attacks against fiscally responsible, moderate Democrats. Much of this is in the wake of the formation of a group in the Senate announced by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN). It appears that the moderates share a common concern about the enormous-deficit budget proposed by the White House and about the process of ramming through major legislation at record-breaking spending levels without due deliberation and scrutiny.

As I posted a few days ago, I think the Bayh group is great and it's heartening to see the most powerful Democrat in the Senate coming to their defense, calling for a suspension of radical demagoguery and a return to common sense.

It really makes me wonder whether those who cook up the ideas for MoveOn.org and friends have ever held positions in any organizations where compromise was necessary. Did they vilify and alienate those they worked with in the same way they attempt to do with these public figures? Any organization requires compromise, and ours is a representative government with many perspectives and valid points. Bludgeoning and ostracism do not lead to enduring solutions. I have a hard time believing that any thoughtful progressive who donated to MoveOn.org really wants them spending those dollars to yank the leash of other Democrats who only want to make sure their concerns, and their constituents' concerns, are part of the process.

Certainly fiscal responsibility is a valid concern - many Democratic groups including those on the left criticized the first six Bush years for their profligate deficit spending. It will do no good to ram through well-intentioned programs if we can't pay for them (or if paying for them means the Fed prints trillions in new money, leading to inflation that reduces everyone's standard of living and drives international currency away from the dollar). Providing scrutiny over the budget will also permit pet projects that really aren't a national priority right now to be examined and deferred - I suspect it's that scrutiny that the less circumspect members of congress want to avoid. Ironically, groups like MoveOn.org - who no doubt believe wholeheartedly that their approach is right and for the common good of the little guy - are quite possibly acting as public-relations pawns for those benefitting the most, and returning the least, on taxpayer dollars.

A ray of light for small businesses

In watching for signs of pragmatic and bipartisan political life, I saw this green shoot emerge from the charred partisan volcanic ash of Congress last week:

Washington, DC – Today, Congressmen Frank Kratovil (D-MD) and Chris Lee (R-NY) introduced legislation designed to encourage and facilitate new business formation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. H.R. 1552, The Small Business Formation and Job Creation Act, will increase the maximum deduction for business start-up expenses under Section 195 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Under the current tax code, the maximum deduction for business start-up expenses is limited to $5000 while additional expenses are left to be amortized over a longer period of time.

The legislation increases the start-up deduction from $5,000 to $20,000 in order to provide additional money for entrepreneurs and small business owners during a time when accessing capital is extremely challenging.

I'm in the midst of launching my first real entrepreneurial effort, part-time while I'm still (knock-on-wood) employed full-time. Unlike my previous attempts at selling things - shareware that I've sold online, freelance programming services, used books at Powell's - this is the real deal, an effort involving double-entry accounting, an attorney, the business as a registered LLC, business liability insurance, and a written business plan reviewed by a volunteer small-business mentor. My dream is to grow this business, through a few modest phases, into a best-of-class software company with at least a dozen employees all making good wages five years from now.

So far, I've invested about $4000 (not counting my own free labor, which is my biggest investment) - just my own money and equipment when I can manage it. For this amount I've got the absolute minimum legal structure and accounting system established, and transferred some computer equipment. I will definitely exceed $5000 in start-up expenses this year. Hopefully the flagship product (to be released over the summer) will make more than all my expenses, but of course this is while I'm still working full time, so if the company is in the black I'll end up in a higher tax bracket because net business income will just be tacked onto my personal income. It may be that the $5000 deduction will be just about right to keep me from paying a lot more in taxes (assuming the business makes money), but if I were starting a company that had employees, or a physical location, or higher liability, or inventory and manufacturing equipment, $5000 would be a mere token and I could end up paying substantially higher taxes right when I need the extra income to try to shift to full-time devotion to the start-up, or to add more inventory, or hire an extra employee.

Let's assume that things stay the way they are and that I, and others starting businesses across the nation, continue to pay a pretty hefty tax bill as we're trying to get off the ground. I sent far more money to Washington than I sent to my landlord last year, and I'm by no means rich (and obviously not even a homeowner). To me this is not a partisan or ideological question, but an eminently pragmatic one; what's the government really doing with all that money?

The rhetoric around vast government spending is all about job creation these days, but if a small chunk of money (tiny on the Wall Street scale) is already where it needs to be - in a fledgling business that is struggling to grow and create jobs - why not leave as much as we can of it it there rather than routing it through the labyrinth of congressional comittees and lobbyists clear across the continent, into the next "stimulus" which is simply a grab-bag of pet projects and top-down bureaucratic mandates? If you're going to grow a plant in your back yard, do you need a government-designed hydroponic system of pipes and a fertilizer supply line that stretches all the way to Washington D.C., or just a little space, soil and sunlight?

Representatives Kratovil and Lee get it. One is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, and both understand that the way to prosperity is never top-down; it is bottom-up. And I think both probably also understand that the key to getting enduring changes made is having bipartisan support, otherwise the less wise voices in Congress (on both sides) will clamour and oppose anything that their side didn't introduce. We should help the rest of our representatives to get it as well, by urging them to support - even co-sponsor - The Small Business Formation and Job Creation Act (H.R. 1552) and similar focused small-business-growth legislation.

(For those readers in Oregon - especially in Portland - this bill is current in the House Ways and Means Committee, where our congressman Earl Blumenauer serves).

Judd Gregg reaffirms support for Wyden's Healthy Americans Act

On Thursday, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) reaffirmed his support as a co-sponsor of the Healthy Americans Act, sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). In his March 19 2009 remarks before the Senate, Gregg voiced his recognition of the urgency of achieving health care reform, and the need for the solution to be bipartisan:

Mr. President, the spiraling cost of health care represents a growing financial crisis for many Americans who either cannot afford quality health care coverage or are struggling to keep the insurance they currently have. When combined with the aging of our population, health care costs are driving the country's long-term fiscal challenges, challenges which we must address in a bipartisan way.

Unfortunately, many proposals being offered to achieve universal health care coverage are pushing us toward a system based on expansive government control, which will eventually lead to rationing, a reduction in the quality of care, and increased health care spending. That is absolutely the wrong way to go.

So, today I join Senator WYDEN and Senator BENNETT as a co-sponsor of the Healthy Americans Act, bi-partisan legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system, in an effort to make quality, affordable health insurance available to all Americans.

Gregg made headlines earlier this year for accepting, and subsequently withdrawing from, the nomination to Commerce Secretary in President Obama's cabinet. More recently Gregg has spoken against the administration's enormous budget, citing the Congressional Budget Office's new projections of the gargantuan deficits ahead. Some on the left have made accusations of this being a sign of Gregg falling in line with what they perceive as partisan obstructionism. I don't really buy this on the merits because Gregg's fiscal principles are well-known, and it is the Obama administration that has shifted positions after campaigning on open, bipartisan process and a return to fiscal responsibility. But if there's any doubt, Gregg's support for this health plan shows his bona fides; it is heartening (if not widely reported) to see him at the same time working to advance such a crucial cause.

The statements of the two Senators underscored the common ground that can be found to build enduring reform through bipartisan and fiscally sound legislation:

Mr. GREGG. In addition to the private market approach to expanding coverage, the bill attempts to reduce the growth in health care spending by providing incentives for preventive health care, wellness programs, and disease management, as well as a stronger focus on health care cost containment measures. These measures include lowering administrative costs and focusing on chronic care management, health information technology and medical malpractice reform as tools to control costs.

In addition to his commitment to enact comprehensive health care reform in a budget-neutral manner, I also would like to commend Senator WYDEN on his willingness to work with me to make improvements on last years' proposal. In particular the removal of the Medicare part D price negotiation language, the enhanced language to ensure stronger state flexibility, and the elimination of the non-health related tax provisions are strong improvements to the bill.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate Senator GREGG's commitment to moving this process forward and the thoughtfulness in his suggestions. I am happy to work with you and all of our other co-sponsors to continue to make improvements to the bill. While there are challenges on the specifics, as Senator GREGG has said, there's a lot to work with. Senator GREGG and I agree on fiscal responsibility, prevention, wellness, chronic care management, modernizing the tax code, improving the quality of care, containing costs, personal responsibility, and the importance of covering everyone.

Wyden summed up the challenges facing the health care reform effort:

In light of the reports earlier this week that President Obama's health reform plan is estimated to cost more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, it is better not to overpromise and undermine cost containment. It is important that the Congress find an appropriate benefit standard that will ensure quality coverage for all Americans that will not undermine our efforts to contain costs. I want to thank Senator GREGG for his thoughtful contributions and his willingness to work with me, Senator BENNETT and our bipartisan group. It's our plan to work closely with our leaders--Chairman BAUCUS, Ranking Member GRASSLEY, Chairman KENNEDY, and Ranking Member ENZI--to end 60 years of gridlock.

Kudos to these two Senators and all others working on this legislation. I'm particularly proud that Ron Wyden represents me as an Oregonian. You can learn more about his Healthy Americans Act here.

(Source of remarks: Congressional Record, Thursday March 19, "21. PATH TO BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT", pages S3541-S3542).

The Bayh Group

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced a few days ago the formation of a new group of 12 to 15 Democratic Senators concerned with the way legislation has been handled this year and aiming to bring moderate concerns to the fore.

Some left-wing blogs immediately reacted by vilifying Bayh, promoting a "he who is not for us is against us" mentality which I don't think is very useful, so I'm not linking there (though they're easy enough to Google).

I applaud the Bayh group because they're going to help bring balance back to the governing process. One of the most compelling arguments made by the Obama campaign was that President Obama would be less polarizing than Hillary Clinton - that he would bring all sides to the table, make the process open and deliberative, and get things done in a way that made sense with solutions that had the broad political base to endure. (I actually felt that based on her work in the Senate, HRC had the better record there if not better rhetoric, but that's a moot point now.)

Obama's transparent, post-partisan promise does not describe the current governmental process. However with some flexing by moderate Democrats things could shape up quickly. The point of the Bayh group is not to defeat any particular goal that the President has in mind (except perhaps the comfort level with long-term trillion-dollar budget deficits; those in the Bayh group do tend to be more serious about fiscal responsibility than either the current or previous administration). The point is to actually solve problems and get beyond the free-for-all that is letting oversight fiascos slip through the cracks.

Imagine you're on a team at your work which is tasked with coming up with a solution to a difficult company problem by the end of the week. Say it's a financial problem that involes your accounting practices and credit situation. You have a standing meeting scheduled every morning with your team and then you each work on it throughout the day. But the new CEO decides everyone should come to your meetings; you won't have the luxury of focusing solely on your problem. Instead, these meetings include all of the business from all of the teams in the company, and decisions need to be made on all the different areas at once - marketing problems, manufacturing problems, facilities maintenance problems, even business about employee parking and vacation policy. Each team has its own backlog of work, but instead of dealing with your problem independently you have to accommodate all of those other teams' business and roll up one mammoth solution, even though some of the other business really doesn't have to be resolved for another quarter or even another year. What are the chances that you'll solve your problem on time, and make no substantial mistakes?

That scenario is analogous to happened with the stimulus bill and the AIG bonus fiasco, and that was just an issue that was blatant enough to make the news. How many more rough edges of our financial policy were neglected or bungled because they were crammed through with a stimulus package that contained about 14 years of deferred partisan agenda? And how many of the longer-term solutions shoehorned into the stimulus or omnibus bills were really not crafted carefully but were simply wish-list items included as political payback or pet project?

In order to solve a problem effectively our government needs to focus. This isn't about bogging everything down in process. It's about saying: let's streamline our attention by focusing on the crisis, and give due vetting and transparency to the other issues which deserve more thorough deliberation, as the President promised he'd do. That's a win-win.

The aim of Bayh's group is not to put on the brakes, though that needs to be done at least to bring the vehicle back under control. The aim is to make sure we can get through a tough stretch of road quickly and safely, and then have time as a nation to look at the map before we careen off into the unknown.

Blog Move

This blogged has been moved to a new owner account - still the same author but I've created a dedicated gmail account separate from my personal account.

As part of this move and the general reset in the blog's focus, I've purged the online archives of articles written under the old account. If you're interested in reading older PanMetron articles you can find some cross-posted on other sites, or you can try the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.

Fare forward!
Pan Metron

The Wyden/Snowe example

If there is one silver lining for me in the cloud (and lightning rod) of the AIG bonus controversy, it is the example of bipartisan wisdom that the Wyden/Snowe amendment provided(and the oversight disaster it would have averted).

The mainstream media is mentioning the amendment tangentially, but for the most part what we hear is a familiar bi-polar blame game and we're never told that a group of Senators was actually anticipating the problem and working across the aisle to prevent it. For those who missed it: Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) put forward an amendment to the stimulus bill which would have imposed an excise tax on bonuses paid from financial institutions which received federal bailout money, unless the companies repaid the bonuses to the government. This would have provided some common-sense oversight for companies that we the taxpayers were rescuing from their own mismanagement.

The amendment was anticipated at going far beyond the 165 million of the AIG bonuses:

Snowe and Wyden said their amendment would work in conjunction with the Treasury Department's new guidelines on executive pay for financial institutions receiving TARP funds, by applying strict standards to bonuses paid in 2008. The new guidelines, announced Tuesday, apply to the unspent $350 billion installment of the $700 billion bailout fund.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the Wyden-Snowe amendment would raise as much as $3.2 billion. Financial institutions received more than $274 billion through the bailout program while paying out an estimated $18.4 billion in employee bonuses last year, the committee said.

This amendment was bipartisan, it was well-researched, it was rational and it was fair. This is the way legislation should be done. It passed in the Senate version of the stimulus legislation, but was then removed in committee, at the behest of the Obama administration. The argument that the administration nixed it because of legal concerns doesn't hold water; it was vetted and found to be constitutional, a point which Wyden stressed to members of the administration.

Now, Wyden and Snowe are promoting the amendment as standalone legislation for bailout funds delivered from here forward. I do not agree with the reactionary, punitive 90% tax effort that the House has now passed; it sets a dangerous precedent and goes too far in damaging the ability of companies to rebuild themselves competitively. The revised Wyden/Snowe legistlation includes adequate enhancement:

...the original bill applied the 35 percent tax only to the companies that distributed the bonuses, while the newer bill would also slap that tax on the employees who received them (Total tax = 70 percent). Also, the first proposal applied the tax only to bonuses in excess of $100,000, while the latest version lowers that floor to $50,000. The provisions would apply only to banks that have accepted more than $100 million in bailout funding (and still have at least that much outstanding).

In the ongoing tumult it's easy to get bogged down in blame and frustration. The only way progress will be made though is to recognize where right decisions are being made and support them. If you're interested in writing your congressional representatives about the AIG bonuses, my suggestion is to skip the outrage and point to the Wyden/Snowe amendement - and the bipartisan approach that produced it - as a model of what we need from the rest of our government.